Are there contradictions in the Resurrection Business relationship? What about the bizarre claims made in Matthew about people rising from the grave after Jesus died? How should Christians respond to skeptics who challenge the veracity of miracles like this? This week's LIVE discussion on Facebook answered these questions and more. Of grade information technology's ever fun when our skeptic friends jump in and flavor the conversation with interesting assertions. Check out our latest video and tune in adjacent Tuesday at 11:45 am (Central Time) for more!

Did the Expressionless Rise and Announced in Jerusalem?

by: Tim Chaffey

The four Gospels highlight dozens of miracles performed past Jesus. We read most Him curing the sick, healing the disabled, casting out demons, controlling nature, and raising the expressionless. Sometimes, Jesus healed a person by merely speaking, equally He did when healing the centurion's retainer in Matthew 8:five–xiii. In other instances He touched the person to heal, like the time He healed two blind men near Jericho in Matthew 20:29–34. Just sometimes the manner in which He healed a person seems rather bizarre, such every bit when He healed the deaf and mute man by putting His fingers in the human's ears and and then spitting and touching the man'due south tongue (Mark 7:33).

Every bit weird equally that healing seems, at that place is one miracle recorded in the Gospels that appears even stranger. And it is this particular phenomenon that has received a growing amount of attention from skeptics in recent years. Sandwiched between Matthew'south account of Christ'southward Crucifixion and Resurrection is the only record nosotros know well-nigh of the following event. With the exception of the violent of the temple veil, no other biblical writer, and no other historian mention these strange details:The four Gospels highlight dozens of miracles performed by Jesus. We read well-nigh Him curing the sick, healing the disabled, casting out demons, controlling nature, and raising the dead. Sometimes, Jesus healed a person by merely speaking, as He did when healing the centurion's retainer in Matthew 8:5–13. In other instances He touched the person to heal, similar the time He healed two blind men nearly Jericho in Matthew twenty:29–34. But sometimes the manner in which He healed a person seems rather bizarre, such as when He healed the deaf and mute human past putting His fingers in the homo's ears and then spitting and touching the man's tongue (Marker vii:33).

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in 2 from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:51–53)

In the past few years, I take had numerous skeptics challenge my belief in Christ's Resurrection on the basis that Matthew is the only person who recorded this event. After all, they fence, such a monumental miracle—"many" people being raised and appearing to people in Jerusalem—surely would have fabricated the news of the day. In other words, at that place is no style that other aboriginal writers would have neglected to write almost such an amazing event, so Matthew must have just fabricated it upwardly.

How should nosotros respond to such a claim? Should Christians be concerned that Matthew is the simply biblical writer to mention this infrequent miracle? What bear upon might this argument have on belief in the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Why Only Matthew?

Without an caption from the biblical writers, I cannot say with certainty why they chose to write what they did. Of grade, my theological explanation is that the Holy Spirit did not choose to accept the other biblical writers to mention information technology. Why might that be the case? I have an explanation that I recall makes very good sense.

Earlier getting to that explanation, let'southward quickly consider the position of the skeptic. If three or iv of the Gospel writers had mentioned that many saints appeared to people in Jerusalem effectually the time of Christ's Resurrection, would the skeptics accept it as historical? I think the reply is obvious: they would not. How do I know? Well, all iv Gospels assert that Jesus rose from the dead, but they do non believe information technology. And then in a sense, this objection does not seem to be all that genuine for almost of the people who raise it.

Now why is Matthew the but 1 to talk about this event? Matthew clearly wrote his Gospel to Jewish readers. He repeatedly emphasized the fulfillment of Former Testament passages. In merely the first two capacity of his book, he explains four events occurred "to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet(s)" (Matthew ane:22–23; 2:15, 17, 23). He knew his readers were very familiar with the Erstwhile Testament.

In the passage in question, Matthew explains an consequence that took place in Jerusalem. Some of his readers may accept even been familiar with information technology, either through firsthand noesis or past hearing it from others. But I believe the reason that Matthew mentions it is that the Jews, with the exception of the Sadducees, believed that people would physically ascension from the dead. They looked forward to a future resurrection, based on passages similar Daniel 12:2, which states, "And many of those who slumber in the dust of the world shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt." When Jesus spoke to Martha earlier raising her brother Lazarus, He said, "Your brother will ascension again" (John 11:23). Consistent with normative Jewish belief of the day, she replied, "I know that he will rising again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11:24). Of course, Jesus had other plans and raised Lazarus moments later on.

Clearly, first century Jews believed in bodily resurrection—they just thought information technology would happen at the end of time. For Matthew to describe an event where multiple people were raised in conjunction with Christ's death, burial, and Resurrection would not be a distraction to his readers. They might be surprised by the timing of such an upshot, just they would not exist appalled by the idea of people rising from the expressionless. They might view the effect every bit a foretaste of what is to come and confirmation that Jesus was indeed who He claimed to be. Possibly this is why so many priests eventually came to believe in Him (Acts 6:seven).

If this is accurate, and so why did the other Gospel writers fail to mention the event? I think the reason is that they were writing to audiences consisting largely of Gentiles in a Hellenized world. For the most part, the Greeks abhorred the idea of a bodily resurrection. So while these writers needed to stress Christ's Resurrection, bringing upward this event would exist an unnecessary distraction for their readers.

An example of the typical Greek reaction to actual resurrection can be seen in Acts 17. When Paul preached to the Athenians, they called him a babbler and a proclaimer of strange gods "because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17:eighteen). And so he was invited to speak in the Areopagus, and as shortly as he mentioned Jesus ascent from the dead, many in the Greek audition ridiculed him (Acts 17:31–32).

When the apostles went around the Roman Empire proclaiming the gospel, the goal was to persuade people to believe in the death, burial, and Resurrection of Christ. They would not need to talk virtually a related effect that is not essential to the main message and might simply introduce confusion. This might explicate why Paul did non mention the consequence in i Corinthians xv, a book written to a church consisting largely of Gentiles. In that affiliate he wrote 58 verses to defend Christ's concrete Resurrection and explain that bodily resurrection is in shop for believers too.

Risen-WAD-DVDs-300x233

Learn how to defend the historical basis of the gospel. Through twelve sessions on 6 DVDs, Eric Hovind and I provide primal insights into the Crucifixion and Resurrection and address scores of skeptical objections raised confronting the virtually important events in history. Available from my online shop.

Why Mention the Other Resurrections?

One objection to this proposal is that Mark, Luke, and John all describe Jesus raising at least one person from the dead. Marker 5 and Luke viii describe the raising of Jairus' daughter and Luke 7 mentions the raising of the widow'due south son. John 11 dramatically describes the raising of Lazarus. If the resurrection of the dead was so offensive to the Greek mindset, why would Mark, Luke, and John include these accounts?

This is a fair question, merely it does non discount my solution to Matthew being the but one to mention many saints being raised. The miraculous raising of the dead described in Marker, Luke, and John occurred well before Christ'southward own Resurrection. Ane of the reasons Greek-minded readers may not object to these is that the resurrections performed past Jesus in the Gospels were qualitatively dissimilar than His own Resurrection. Jairus' daughter, the widow'south son, and Lazarus were not raised in glorified bodies that would never die again. Information technology may be better to call these resuscitations or "revivications." Jesus was raised in a glorified body that can never die again, and that body will be part of Him for all eternity. This is why Paul can telephone call Jesus the firstfruits of those who rising from the expressionless in 1 Corinthians 15:23.

But what virtually the many saints who were raised around the time of Christ'southward Crucifixion and Resurrection? Would they die again? Matthew does not specifically address this question, just given Paul'southward identification of Jesus every bit the "firstfruits" of those who rise from the expressionless, information technology seems as if the many saints were probably non raised in glorified bodies and did dice again. Nonetheless, if Mark, Luke, or John would have described this event in such close proximity to the Lord's Resurrection, it would likely have been a major distraction for Greek-minded readers. Why should they fifty-fifty bring it upwardly when their goal is to assistance their readers understand that Jesus rose from the dead?

History, Myth, or Literary Device?

I believe the events happened just as they are described in Matthew 27:51–53. This is consistent with the majority of conservative Christian scholars. Since all of the details in the surrounding passages are written with the clear intent that they should be understood in a straightforward manner, it is natural to interpret these verses in the same way.

A few years ago, Mike Licona published an outstanding work on establishing the Resurrection of Jesus from a historian'south perspective (see my review of the book hither). Well-nigh the end of the book, he raised a fair flake of controversy among Christians by proposing that maybe these verses should be understood as a literary device in which the writer was using a popular convention of the solar day to show that an extremely important person had but died. A famous comet appeared but a few months after Julius Caesar's assassination, and throughout Greek literature of that era, signs in the heavens are often associated with the demise of an important figure. After citing several of these examples, Licona postulated that Matthew may have merely been using a well-known literary device to stress the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Several conservative scholars criticized Licona'southward proposal, with some arguing that he sought to redefine the way in which we interpret the Gospels, a move which they believe would have devastating furnishings on the Christian organized religion if it became popular.

The business concern for some Christians was that this passage has generally been held equally historical and so if one could reinterpret these words equally just being some literary device, so what is to stop someone from taking that approach in other areas, particularly the Crucifixion narrative just earlier it and the Resurrection account that follow?

Overstating the Case

If what is described in this passage did not really happen, would information technology follow that we should terminate viewing the Crucifixion and Resurrection as historical too? That is perhaps the major concern for Christians and is at the eye of the challenge from skeptics. But let'southward think most this for a moment. Although they could never practice it, if the skeptic could somehow demonstrate that these saints never rose, how would it have whatever begetting on whether Jesus rose from the dead? At best (for the skeptic) or worst (for the Christian), all that would accept been accomplished is that a unique passage well-nigh saints ascent from the expressionless is erroneous. This might be a strike against biblical inerrancy, merely it would non accept any impact on whether Jesus rose from the dead.

The Resurrection is not contingent upon the veracity of Matthew 27:51–53, and the Christian faith does non depend on the truth of that passage. Christianity rests upon the historical reality that Jesus died for our sins and conquered death when He rose from the dead. So in a sense, all the skeptic has done is introduce a ruby-red herring, an argument that distracts one from the issue at mitt.

Let me clarify this point and then there is no misunderstanding. I am not denying inerrancy (I strongly affirm it). But if this passage were untrue, a Christian could still contend for inerrancy by claiming that it was not originally part of Matthew's Gospel merely was added over the years. This has happened with some well-known verses (the woman caught in adultery in John seven:53–8:11 and the last twelve verses of Marking's Gospel). Of course, this argument could not be shortly supported since nosotros know of no early on manuscripts of Matthew 27 that lacks these verses, but the skeptic could never testify this merits wrong since the originals no longer exist. This is non my approach; I have merely raised this point to show how the skeptical charge misses the marking.

Decision

From a historical perspective, since we cannot interview Gospel writers and ask them why they did or did non include a sure passage, we cannot know with certainty why they may take avoided a given account. In the case of sure saints being raised and appearing to a bunch of people in Jerusalem, I take explained a very logical reason why simply Matthew'south Gospel mentions this unique outcome. I cannot prove my view is correct, but this strange event recorded by Matthew cannot merely be dismissed because no one else wrote about it, and it definitely should non exist used as an argument against the Lord's Resurrection.

Christians can exist confident that Jesus died on the Cantankerous for the sins of the world and rose again on the third day, just every bit the Bible declares. No amount of critical or skeptical attacks volition change the fact that the Lord defeated death past rising from the dead, giving believers the sure hope of eternal life with Him in immortal and incorruptible bodies (1 Corinthians 15:53).